scholarly journals Use of standard forms in EU Civil Judicial Cooperation: the case of the European Certificate of Succession = L’uso di formulari standard nella cooperazione giudiziaria civile: il caso del certificato successorio europeo

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 627
Author(s):  
Silvia Marino
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Application Form ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Abstract: The present paper analyses the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Brisch case. The reference for preliminary ruling concerns the optional or mandatory nature of the application form established by the Succession Implementing Regulation for the issue of an European Certificate of Succession. The present paper tackles the general framework, from the current CJEU’s case law on the Succession Regulation’s provisions on the ECS, to the main procedural issues. Then, an analysis of the case and of the CJEU’s reasoning is offered. The concluding remarks submit some considerations on the impact of the standard forms established by the EU Regulations within the civil judicial cooperation.Palabras clave: European Certificate of Succession, Standard Forms, Succession Regulation No 650/2012, Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014.Riassunto: Il presente contributo analizza la recente sentenza Brisch della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea. La domanda di pronuncia pregiudiziale verte sulla natura del modello di domanda di emissione del certificato successorio europeo, previsto dal regolamento di esecuzione del regolamento sulle successioni transfrontaliere. Pertanto, il contributo affronta lo stato attuale della giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia sul certificato successorio europeo e le regole procedimentali fondamentali per il suo ottenimento. Quindi, è analizzato il caso con particolare attenzione alla motivazione della Corte. Infine, le conclusioni presentano alcune considerazioni più generali sul valore e sugli effetti dei moduli standard, previsti nei regolamenti dell’Unione in materia di cooperazione giudiziaria civile.Parole chiave: certificato successorio europeo, moduli standard, regolamento 650/2012 sulle successioni transfrontaliere, regolamento d’esecuzione 1329/2014

scholarly journals The European arrest warrant in the case law of the Court of Justice

2014 ◽  
pp. 61-80
Author(s):  
Helena Patricio
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
European Area ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Impact

A key factor in the creation of a European area of freedom, security and justice is the principle of mutual recognition, which the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002, for the first time, comprehensively implemented in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The Court of Justice of the European Union has greatly contributed to the understanding of the Framework Decision, accentuating its goals and enhancing its guiding principles, which are the mutual recognition of judgments in the different Member States of the European Union and mutual trust that should settle among them, for the creation of the said area. The West judgment of 28 June 2012, C-192/12 PPU, on urgent preliminary ruling procedure, aptly illustrates the impact of this case law, highlighting the role of this procedure, implemented on 1 March 2008.

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Georgian Legal System

2020 ◽  
pp. 241-262
Author(s):  
Gaga Gabrichidze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
System P ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This chapter scrutinizes perception of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the Georgian courts and the Georgian Competition Agency. With the conclusion of the Association Agreement between the EU and Georgia in 2014, the Georgian legal system undoubtedly became more closely connected with EU law. Hence, approximation commitments under the Association Agreement made the case law of the CJEU of much more relevance for the Georgian courts and administrative authorities. However, in the wake of intensification of EU–Georgia relations, the impact of CJEU case law can be identified even in the time before conclusion of the Association Agreement. Analysis shows that several factors play a role with regard to the extent and frequency of mentioning CJEU case law in the decisions of the Georgian courts and Competition Agency. Judges refer to case law of the CJEU with the aim of either strengthening their own arguments or using it as a source of interpretation. Taking into consideration the ‘European’ roots of Georgia’s competition policy, the Competition Agency regards the case law of the CJEU as having a very important interpretative value for closing ‘gaps’ in the law.

Saving Judicial Independence: A Threat to the Preliminary Ruling Mechanism?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Charlotte Reyns
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

Admissibility of questions for preliminary ruling – Independence of courts and tribunals in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as Dorsch Consult criterion under Article 267 TFEU – Independence of courts and tribunals in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as element of the Rule of Law value under Article 19 TEU – Structural inadmissibility of questions for preliminary ruling as perverse consequence of the attempts to safeguard independence of the EU judiciary

scholarly journals Interpretation of Art. 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oskar Losy
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

The paper discusses the problem of the ne bis in idem principle stipulated in the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 54 of the CISA makes the application of the principle ne bis in idem subject to the condition of execution of the penalty. An analogous condition is not provided for in the Charter. These differences caused doubts regardingthe application of the ne bis in idem principle and were subject of the question for preliminary ruling in the Spasic case (C-129/14 PPU). The paper contains a critical review of the reasoning of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this judgment. In addition, the article also contains an analysis of the CJEU’s decision in Case C-398/12 M. in which the CJEU has analysed the meaning of “final disposal” of the judgment in the context of the ne bis in idem principle. Based on the above judgments, the article presents arguments indicating that the reasoning of the CJEU on the conditions for the application of the ne bis in idem principle in judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU is not consistent.

The preliminary ruling procedure at the court of justice of the European Union and transformation of European anti-discrimination law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.

scholarly journals Has the Action for Failure to Act in the European Union Lost its Purpose?

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Daukšienė ◽  
Arvydas Budnikas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Eu

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution’s express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.

scholarly journals Support Schemes in Renewable Energy: Commentary to Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017, ENEA S.A. v. Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-183
Author(s):  
Nevin Alija
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Renewable Energy ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Environmentally Friendly ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Financial Penalty ◽  
The Eu

In its September 13th 2017 decision,1 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided on a request for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court of Poland (Sąd Najwyższy) in proceedings between ENEA S.A. (ENEA) and the president of the Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki (Office for the regulation of energy, URE) on the imposition by the latter of a financial penalty on ENEA for breach of its obligation to supply electricity produced by cogeneration. The judgment of the Court of Justice follows many decisions of the European Commission and judgments of the EU courts assessing the involvement of State resources in support schemes in energy, particularly with the aim of switching towards more environmentally friendly sources. This case reaffirms that support schemes may, in certain circumstances, fall outside the scope of the EU State aid rules.

Anti-discrimination Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union before and after the Economic Crisis

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amalie Frese
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Economic Crisis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Direct Role ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Weak Evidence ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Income inequality is at an all-time high in the Europe Union (EU). Implications from the economic crisis which broke out in 2008, and in particularly the austerity measures introduced by Governments in Eurozone countries receiving bailout programmes, created further inequalities, for example between men and women. This paper starts from the hypothesis that whereas other institutions in the EU have played a direct role in tackling the economic crisis, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) may have played a more indirect role, which nonetheless can have an overlooked value in particular for setting direction for legal norms of equality and anti-discrimination in Europe. The paper therefore addresses a legal-empirical question: To what extent does the anti-discrimination case law of the CJEU reflect the increased inequalities in Europe following the economic crisis? Based on a dataset of all anti-discrimination cases of the CJEU, I conduct a quantitative analysis of changes in the case law from before to after the economic crisis. I find that there is only weak evidence, which suggests that the case law of the CJEU reflects the increased inequalities following the economic crisis.

Mixed Agreements: The EU Law Fundamentals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Mixed Agreements ◽  
The Eu

Whatever terminology one might wish to employ to describe the form of integration constituted by the European Union and its Member States, one fundamental attribute of that arrangement has always been the division, as between the Union and its Member States, of competence to conclude international agreements with other subjects of international law. Today, the fact that treaty-making competence—as an external facet of the more general division of legal authority—is divided and, to some extent, shared between the Union and its Member States is reflected by some of the opening provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Notwithstanding the changes to the scope and nature of the powers conferred upon the Union, resulting from both changes to primary law and the evolution of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the basic characteristics of the conferment as an attribution of a limited kind has always been the same; there has always existed a polity endowed with a treaty-making authority divided between and, indeed, shared by, the Union and its Member States. In the early 1960s mixed agreements—that is, agreements to which the European Union

scholarly journals Fact or Fiction? Case C-616/17 and the Compatibility of the EU Authorisation Procedure for Pesticides with the Precautionary Principle

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 481-497
Author(s):  
Sophia PAULINI
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Legal Standard ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

This contribution analyses whether the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provides clarifications on the normative implications that the precautionary principle entails in the context of Regulation 1107/2009, laying out the EU authorisation procedure for pesticides, in its recent judgement in Case C-616/17. In this judgement, which is a response to a request for a preliminary ruling by a French criminal court on the compatibility of certain aspects of Regulation 1107/2009 with the precautionary principle, the CJEU concludes that the questions of the referring court reveal nothing capable of affecting the validity of the regulation. According to the CJEU, to ensure conformity with the precautionary principle, the EU legislature must establish a normative framework that makes available to competent authorities sufficient information to adequately assess the risks to health resulting from the pesticide in question. However, the CJEU’s substantive analysis of the compatibility of the different aspects of Regulation 1107/2009 with the precautionary principle is not conducted concretely in light of this legal standard, but constitutes a mere testing of the general adequacy of Regulation 1107/2009. Furthermore, the CJEU’s judgement examines Regulation 1107/2009 in a vacuum without considering problems that have occurred in its implementation or application.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document